Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘IPCC’

Click on “environment” over on the category cloud and you will find my frustrations with the global warming consensus… and I’ve taken some heat for it.  But lo and behold when skepticism has some measure of evidence.  And we are seeing a rise of that, following on the heels of the IPCC’s leaked e-mail scandal.  Well now the leader of that IPCC group seems to be easing up a bit.  From a wonderful Wall Street Journal opinion piece:

Phil Jones, the University of East Anglia scientist at the center of the emails, last week acknowledged to the BBC that there hasn’t been statistically significant warming since 1995. He said there was more warming in the medieval period, before today’s allegedly man-made effects. He also said “the vast majority of climate scientists” do not believe the debate over climate change is settled. Mr. Jones continues to believe in global warming but acknowledges there’s no consensus.

How nice to hear this after we were all bludgeoned over the head that there WAS consensus, and all skeptics were anti-environmentalists intent on destroying the earth.

As the opinion piece’s author, L. Gordon Crovitz continues:

Skeptics don’t doubt science—they doubt unscientific claims cloaked in the authority of science. The scientific method is a foundation of our information age, with its approach of a clearly stated hypothesis tested through a transparent process with open data, subject to review.

The IPCC report was instead crafted by scientists hand-picked by governments when leading politicians were committed to global warming. Unsurprisingly, the report claimed enough certainty to justify massive new spending and regulations.

Some in the scientific community are now trying to restore integrity to climate science. “The truth, and this is frustrating for policymakers, is that scientists’ ignorance of the climate system is enormous,” Mr. Christy wrote in the current issue of Nature. “There is still much messy, contentious, snail-paced and now, hopefully, transparent, work to do.”

I don’t know much about science.  What I do know, is that I do not like being told “just trust us” when a decision is being made, and especially decisions of such monumental importance.  And the “just trust us” attitude is all I feel has been presented for a while.  I’m not saying that the debate is over and solved now… but rather that it seems a debate might actually be forced to take place finally.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

I have talked of a lack of debate on the global warming causation here (also check our global warming category), and now there is the hoopla about – forgive me – “climategate” (I really wish I didn’t use that term).  I don’t really have anything new to add to all the news about the UAE hacking that led to the discovery of the discussion of destroying evidence that didn’t fit the needs of certain climate scientists.  There are many who are hyperventilating about this being the end of the global warming agenda for Al Gore and others – I don’t agree.  And there are also plenty of people defending the scientists by saying that there are valid reasons, and explanations, and that there are plenty of checks and balances at the IPCC – again, I don’t agree.

All I can add is my continued dismay at the way this discussion and debate is handled, and that my skepticism grows, not shrinks, because of the “experts”.

Read Full Post »